C. W. Conrad wrote:
> >I saw this when you first posted it, Mike, and scratched my
head. It may be
> >true that there's a difference between vocative with and
without the W, but
> >I really am rather skeptical. I'd like to see some real
evidence, and I am
> >inclined to think this is only a conjecture. Which is to say,
of course,
> >that I really don't know!

J. Robie wrote:

> I notice that my Gramcord notes, the wonderful grammatical
commentary
> associated with the Gramcord program, has the following
comment:
>
> <start quote>
>
> Special Notes:
>
> I. The reader of the English Bible will notice that sometimes
the word "O"
> (transliterating
> the Greek w\ ) precedes the person being addressed (e.g.,) #
Matt 15:28 This
> is the Hellenistic and Koine Greek way of indicating Emphatic
Address. Thus
> the Vocative without "O" preceding it is Simple Address. This
rule is
> followed everywhere in the New Testament except Acts, where
Luke follows the
> Classical rules for Vocative, which are exactly the opposite
from the Koine
> rules. Thus in Acts "O" precedes Simple Address
> # Acts 1:1; cf., Luke 1:3 but is lacking in front of Emphatic
Address.
>
> <end quote>
>
>
> Jonathan
>

I don't doubt that the NT particle "W" is used in a situation
where the speaker is more passionate than generally. This use is
clearly indicated in the LXX, where "W" is often the translation